- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:41:01 -0500
- To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- CC: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Tom, Thanks for pointing this out. We were told by multiple folks that it didn't make sense to have dc:creator point to a string, e.g. "Mark Birbeck." That's why we added this comment in the Primer, so we could dodge the issue a bit while presenting RDFa. I'm not sure we have any specific feedback for DCMI: we can handle either case, especially with the striping approach. We just didn't want to get into striping in the first example. -Ben Thomas Baker wrote: > Ben, Mark, Michael, > > In Section 3.2, the Primer [1] says: > > In the above markup and triples, as well as in the rest of > the document, we slightly abuse the dc:creator predicate, > which is most often meant to refer to a person, not just > a literal. > > Currently, dc:creator has no formal range, but DCMI is > considering a proposal to replicate the fifteen properties > of the http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ namespace into the > http://purl.org/dc/terms/ namespace and assign ranges > to these properties. This proposal has been out for Public > Comment, which closes on March 5 (details below). > > Assigning a range to dcterms:creator (proposed range: Agent) would > in no way break the examples in the Primer, which use dc:creator > (range undefined). However, DCMI would encourage new implementations > of DC metadata to make use of the new dcterms: properties rather than > the older dc: properties. Furthermore, as already discussed in the > Public Comment period, the proposal to assign ranges > raises more general issues about the expected ranges of properties such > as dc:date and dc:creator [2,3]. It would be extremely if this > group could provide input to DCMI on this issue - both in general and from > the standpoint of RDFa (for example, on the assumptions or preferences > reflected in the quote above). > > Note that a number of other related specifications (especially > [4], Expressing Dublin Core metadata using RDF) are in the pipeline and > depend for their finalization on the outcome of Public Comment on the > Abstract Model. > > Tom > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/ > [2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=4038 > [3] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=10112 > [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/ > > > ---- > > I would like to draw the attention of this group to a Public > Comment period, through 5 March, on a revised version of the > DCMI Abstract Model [1] and a proposed vocabulary of domains > and ranges for DCMI metadata terms [2]. > > In particular Section 5, which specifies the relationship > of the DCMI Abstract Model to RDF [6], may be of interest. > > Further context about this comment period is provided in > postings to the DC-ARCHITECTURE working group [3,4, see also > below], where any comments should be posted and discussion > is now taking place [5]. > > Tom Baker > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/ > [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/domain-range/ > [3] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=171 > [4] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=291 > [5] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html > [6] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/#sect-5 > > > >> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:32:28 +0100 >> From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> >> To: DCMI Architecture <dc-architecture@jiscmail.ac.uk> >> Subject: Public comment for revision of DCMI Abstract Model >> >> The DCMI Abstract Model, which attained the status of DCMI >> Recommendation in March 2005, has been revised in light of >> discussion and feedback from the DCMI Architecture Working >> Group, the DCMI Usage Board, and the broader community. >> >> This revised version of the Abstract Model [1] has been >> posted for a four-week public comment period. The major >> differences between this revised version and the 2005 version >> [2] are summarized below. A revised DCMI Namespace Policy >> [3] proposing a new DCMI namespace for Abstract Model entities >> has been posted for comment at the same time. >> >> Interested members of the public are invited to post comments >> on these Proposed Recommendations to the DC-ARCHITECTURE >> mailing list [4], including "[DCAM Public Comment]" in the >> subject line. Public Comment will be open from 5 February >> through 5 March 2007. >> >> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/ >> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/03/07/abstract-model/ >> [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/dcmi-namespace/ >> [4] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html >> >> >> >> >> Changes in the DCMI Abstract Model, 2005 to 2007 >> >> -- Added a table explicitly mapping Abstract Model entities to >> properties and classes of the Resource Description Framework >> (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS). The DCMI Abstract Model defines >> a particular Description Model on the basis of RDFS semantics. >> >> -- Added a separate Vocabulary Model specifying the types >> of "terms" used in Dublin Core metadata descriptions and >> including support for formal domains and ranges for properties. >> The declaration of a vocabulary of classes and their use >> as domains and ranges for DCMI properties is the focus of a >> separate Public Comment period. >> >> -- Changed the definition of 'vocabulary encoding scheme' -- >> defined in 2005 as "a class that indicates that the value of a >> property is taken from a controlled vocabulary" -- to mean "an >> enumerated set of resources" of which the value is a member. >> (A value can be described as an instance of a class by other >> means, such as by a separate statement to this effect). >> >> -- Updated the definition of 'rich representation', adding >> the notion of 'media type'. >> >> Other editorial changes >> >> -- Tightened the definition of 'syntax encoding scheme', >> explicitly mapping the concept to the RDF Schema class >> 'Datatype'. >> >> -- Tightened terminology and wordings to clarify meaning >> (e.g., by consistently using phrases instead of sentences for >> definitions; by referring to 'described resource' instead of >> just 'resource'; by using the phrase "separate 'description' >> about the 'value'" instead of a modeling entity for 'separate >> description'). >> >> -- Shortened the document by removing sections describing >> related issues such as 'dumb-down' (formerly Section 5), >> 'structured values' (formerly Appendix A), and specific >> encoding guidelines (formerly Appendixes B, C, and D). >> Much of this material will be provided in revised form in >> more user-oriented documentation. >> >> -- Added a table mapping current Abstract Model terminology >> to the terminology in legacy DCMI "grammatical principles" >> documentation (now Appendix A). >> >> -- Permitted a value string to be associated with either >> a language tag or syntax encoding scheme, or neither, but >> not both. >> >> -- Added a note to the effect that classes can be declared >> explicitly or inferred from the domains and ranges of >> properties. Dropped the guideline that in DCMI metadata >> descriptions, the class of the resource being described should >> be indicated by the value of the Dublin Core Type property. >> >> -- Simplified the Description Model, removing 'marked-up >> text' and 'structured value string' as separate entities and >> rearranging the diagram to improve readability. >> >> -- Added placeholder URIs identifying DCMI Abstract Model >> entities in a new DCMI namespace (as described in the >> revised DCMI Namespace Policy, also posted for Public >> Comment). >> >> -- Replaced QNames throughout the document with full URIs. >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> >> Director, Specifications and Documentation >> Dublin Core Metadata Initiative > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 15:40:37 UTC